I honestly don't believe Arclight is a bigot in the traditional sense. I'm confident that he wouldn't treat someone who is gay badly. Unfortunately, the religion he chooses to follow is letting him down by not being as good as he is.

Less than 50 years ago, many white churches wouldn't even allow black worshipers to enter their building. At the time, they used similar arguments as to why blacks couldn't worship with whites. While there is still a racial divide in congregations, most (if not all) faiths have acknowledged they were wrong to exclude people based on their skin color.

I'm betting that 50 years from now, someone will be writing something similar about some Christian group's treatment of gays.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I honestly don't believe Arclight is a bigot in the traditional sense. I'm confident that he wouldn't treat someone who is gay badly. Unfortunately, the religion he chooses to follow is letting him down by not being as good as he is.

As a Christian, I do not condone the gay life style. That does not make me a bigot nor does that make Arclight. As an American, though, I feel there is no way to restrict gay's right to marry. This will all be moot by the end of the summer when SCOTUS rules that way as well.

Quote

Less than 50 years ago, many white churches wouldn't even allow black worshipers to enter their building. At the time, they used similar arguments as to why blacks couldn't worship with whites. While there is still a racial divide in congregations, most (if not all) faiths have acknowledged they were wrong to exclude people based on their skin color.

I'm betting that 50 years from now, someone will be writing something similar about some Christian group's treatment of gays.

The problem with this argument is that racism is not supported in the Bible, but being against what God deems as immoral is. I understand why you make that argument as the precedent was set with 'Christians' acting unbibically so it is easier to cast stones now that they're trying to act bibically.

It's probably best if you not cite the bible as your source of morality...

Quote

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

I can point to dozens of these things (and Knightshade Dragon actually did in another post elsewhere). If you can admit that that's wrong, why not open your mind and accept that maybe the bible's stance on homsexuality is wrong too?

« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 12:21:57 AM by hepcat »

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I honestly don't believe Arclight is a bigot in the traditional sense. I'm confident that he wouldn't treat someone who is gay badly. Unfortunately, the religion he chooses to follow is letting him down by not being as good as he is.

As a Christian, I do not condone the gay life style. That does not make me a bigot nor does that make Arclight.

Actually, it does. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but by definition you are. We all have our bigotries and prejudices, this just happens to be one of yours. It's fine. But don't say you aren't bigoted towards gays just because you don't like the word bigot or because it's what your church told you. It is what it is. I mean I'm bigoted towards the poors and in some cases religious people. We all have our prejudices. Find me a poor religious person and I will show you someone I am predetermined not to like .

For reference in case it was necessary:

Condone: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless <a government accused of condoning racism> <condone corruption in politics>

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Quote

As an American, though, I feel there is no way to restrict gay's right to marry. This will all be moot by the end of the summer when SCOTUS rules that way as well.

Agreed.

Quote

Quote

Less than 50 years ago, many white churches wouldn't even allow black worshipers to enter their building. At the time, they used similar arguments as to why blacks couldn't worship with whites. While there is still a racial divide in congregations, most (if not all) faiths have acknowledged they were wrong to exclude people based on their skin color.

I'm betting that 50 years from now, someone will be writing something similar about some Christian group's treatment of gays.

The problem with this argument is that racism is not supported in the Bible, but being against what God deems as immoral is. I understand why you make that argument as the precedent was set with 'Christians' acting unbibically so it is easier to cast stones now that they're trying to act bibically.

People tend to get a bit confused between racism and slavery, in that the bible was totally cool with one of those things.

The fundamental issue is that many people have been using religion/spiritualism (not just Christianity) as their justification for doing all sorts of bad things since the beginning of time. From the crusades to slavery to segregation to jihad to this and all manner of other things, it's just a part of our history as human beings. It's a crutch we use when normal logic is against us.

To me ultimately the logic boils down to marriage being a legal status with legal rights and priveleges. Trying to frame it as solely a religious concept breaks down in the fact that non-religious people can also get legally "married". There is no set standard that I'm aware of to define marriage in a religious context (can atheists get "married"? Buddhists? Mormons? Jews?). Who draws the line? Does one particular religion's "marriage" have more moral value than everyone else's?

The irony is that I could go out right now and "marry" a criminal, a prostitute, a child molester, even a murderer... as long as it was a woman. And apparently that would be morally better and less threatening than marrying the nicest guy on the planet.

To me ultimately the logic boils down to marriage being a legal status with legal rights and priveleges. Trying to frame it as solely a religious concept breaks down in the fact that non-religious people can also get legally "married". There is no set standard that I'm aware of to define marriage in a religious context (can atheists get "married"? Buddhists? Mormons? Jews?). Who draws the line? Does one particular religion's "marriage" have more moral value than everyone else's?

We keep trying to make these points, but Arclight and ATB shrug off equal rights on things like medical decisions and shared property as "political correctness."

This lifestyle choice strikes me as depraved and unnatural, so even though it does not affect me in any way, I would like to propose that the forum rules immediately be changed to forbid them from making any forum post that includes the letter 'S.' It makes exactly as much sense as denying gay couples the right to file tax returns as married because of "Scripture!" and, since we know they're both opposed to the political correctness of equal rights, they'll obviously support this change.